Quote:
Originally Posted by missbella
Funny you mention that. There is extremely slim literature about harmful or useless therapy or even why a significant percentage of clients end treatment "prematurely." Try finding reading if you're a consumer harmed in therapy. I find the professionals' stumbling attempts mostly is self-serving, condescending and unperceptive. It's almost like the profession has barely moved on from Freud,who bent in amusing contortions to blame "negative therapeutic reaction" squarely where it belongs--on the patient.
When I criticized an ethics book on Amazon - using polite language, backing my arguments-- three professionals jumped in in condescending reprisals and ad hominem attacks. One was a past APA president. It was hilarious how these providers behave like one of their own's writing was immune from review on Amazon.
Another hilarious example is Linda Martin's review of Anna Sand 's very insightful critique, Falling For Therapy. Again a therapist lacks any real substance to criticize a book that bothers her, so she hurls the ad hominem thing, criticizing a total stranger's emotional fitness.
Greenvalues Ltd - Opinion: A Response to Anna Sands? Falling for Therapy
This is similar to psych critics like Dineen and Smail who reported vicious personal attacks. In my own travels I've seen numerous examples of practioners using so-called diagnosis as weaponry when someone says something they apparently didn't like.
I get the strong impression the mental health profession as a whole is resistant to scrutiny. A (again funny) exception is the vitriol they aim at practitioners of "rival" modalities. The scientific cloak looks very thin to me. |
Funny, I've just never gotten that impression. I'll grant you that what I've read concerning premature termination has seemed unperceptive at times, but I don't know that I've stumbled across anything self-serving or condescending. They (the authorities) have always seemed more than willing to take the lion's share of responsibility for premature termination, therapeutic ruptures, failures to form alliance, etc. Ackerman & Hilsenroth talk a lot about this (lest I look like I'm talking out my ***).
I would disagree vehemently that the profession has barely moved on from Freud.
That said, I've never been in a position of having been harmed in therapy or searching for answers to validate and explain what went wrong. I've never researched with the purpose of finding therapy criticism, or with an eye to how criticism was handled. You've obviously done your research and I'm dreadfully sorry you've had negative experiences to the point of being attacked by so-called authorities on an Amazon review. I struggle to take any professional seriously who has the time to get into internet arguments.
The opinion article linked here does highlight a troubling phenomena--I'll admit that there's always the possibility that anyone critical of therapy will be dismissed as a nutjob. Since, you know, only nutjobs go to therapy. I've seen that attitude in blogs and editorials and other casual reading, but never in anything peer-reviewed or, you know, scientific enough to make my brain hurt.
I may have been filtering--again, my research (such as it is--haha) has always been focused on other aspects of therapy and my view of the institution's ability to take criticism is only a retrospective observation.
So, thank you very much for your viewpoint. I'll read with a sharper eye in the future.